The End of the compact disc? I doubt it.

[stray]

I know, I was referring to Signe referring to vacuum tubes as 'valves'.

Ah, OK. Heh, if I'm not mistaken, it's another one of those pecularities of British usage.

[HaemishM]

Marketing and the mass consumer reaction will determine the future audio formats. Quality, be it technical or perceived, will not.

That is the most cogent and important thing said in this thread. Betamax was superior to VHS tapes... except that no one bought them. Your pristine audio format that introduces no loss and makes your ears weep with joy matters jack and shit if you can't buy it. And the shuffling, stinking mass of buying humanity will determine what the replacement for CD Audio is. And we probably have not seen the format that will replace it yet.

I will say that I don't WANT to hear Ashlee Simpson as she actually sounds. Please distort her to sound not sucky, kthxbye.

[Murgos]

MP3 is a compression format and therefore lossy.

Right, that's why compressed ZIP files are unable to unZIP, to recreate the original file. 

Notice: there is a difference between lossy compression and lossless compression.  The latter does exist.

You are right I misspoke, however MP3 is not a lossless compression algorithm it achieves compression by resampling hence the cute little 192k or 64k that most people append to thier .mp3 files.

Are there any lossless compression algorithms that are fast enough to be listened to in real time?  Or do you always have to 'unpack' them before playing?

[SirBruce]

I have to say, personally, that I find 192 KB most enjoyable.  It's hard for me to tell any difference if you go up to 256 KB, and anything beyond that is probably wasted.

Bruce

[Righ]

Are there any lossless compression algorithms that are fast enough to be listened to in real time?  Or do you always have to 'unpack' them before playing?

That's a "ball of string" question. Depends on your system processor and whether you have dedicated compression hardware. Probably not on an Apple IIe.

Comparison

[Teleku]

I can't tell the difference between mp3 and CD at all.  Neither can most of the general public.  The perceived sound quality difference of a small minority will not have an impact on what replaces CD's.  That's not to say they won't be around for a lot longer for other reasons, but this 'issue' on sound quality you guys are complaining about will not factor in the slightest in the decision.

[Strazos]

Just a quick note....

Most kids buying music are bloody thieves and will take whatever comes easiest; ie mp3's and CD's.

Also, the vast majority of listeners don't have top-end gear, so any minor nuances of a particular format are moot: they cannot hear the difference, and don't really care.

I personally still buy CD's (albeit online usually), because I hate the downtime incurred by having to do a ton of ripping. Also, about half of the stuff I listen to isn't really available for me to steal online (from a reliable source)  if I was so inclined.

Get back to me after I get my free i-Pod.

[Margalis]

The problem with lossless compression is not the speed of unpacking, its the size of the file. Lossy files are much smaller. I doubt speed of unpacking is really a big issue anymore.

Different lossy formats have different issues, it depends a lot on what type of music you listen to. Algorithms that perform fixed rate sampling can run into moire type patterns against sounds of a similar frequency. (Similar to moire patterns and artifacts in 3d rendering)

Personally I like CDs because I like albums, rather than collections of individual songs. (With pop music there is no difference of course) I also like owning concrete stuff.

[Shockeye]

I just wanted to mention how irritated I am with all online music services for having shitty bitrates or shitty selection.

[Big Gulp]

192 is not compact disc quality. If I am paying money then I want the same quality, no trade-offs accepted.

Eh.  I'm tone deaf (really!), so for the most part I just can't tell a compressed (above 128K) file apart from the CD version.  Could just be that I don't have a killer sound system, but I don't think so.  I'm just one of those people who either A) can't pick up on the differences, or B) isn't bothered by them.

[Samwise]

I'd like to mention that I don't care about bitrate one whit, but DRM pisses me off.  I'm currently unable to listen to some of the songs that I've bought from the Apple music store because their DRM seems to be buggy.  FTS.  If I buy anything else from their store, I'll be sure to strip the DRM and save it as mp3 before doing anything else.  Fuckers.

[Strazos]

As i might be getting an iPod soon...how do you convert it?

[Samwise]

I'm not sure I can say here what means you would use to remove the DRM from, say, a hymn.  But the converting to MP3 is easy - iTunes has a context menu option for that.

[Arnold]

I don't think lossless is absolutely necessary. 192kbps, perhaps 256, is a decent tradeoff for fast delivery. Sound quality at that rate isn't go to be bad unless it's really scrutinized. I will agree though that "CD Quality" downloadable music is hype. For some reason, people want to believe it, even though it's nowhere near the truth.

Is it really hype? With my fiber optic internet service, 700 or so megabytes doesn't seem like all that much to download.

[Shockeye]

I would be happy to find 192k music, but outside of Real, it isn't out there.

Yes, yes, I know of allofmp3.com. I have no problems buying from them at 320k or AIFF at $0.02 a megabyte but they don't have the catalog. One or two interesting things, but nothing obscure.

[stray]

I would be happy to find 192k music, but outside of Real, it isn't out there.

Yes, yes, I know of allofmp3.com. I have no problems buying from them at 320k or AIFF at $0.02 a megabyte but they don't have the catalog. One or two interesting things, but nothing obscure.

Emusic has plenty of obscure stuff. Or at least they did at one point in time (and believe me, if it's obscure to me, it's REALLY obscure). Too bad they've moved to a "per song" type of subscription deal though. A couple years back, it was a flat monthly fee, with unlimited downloads. Damn shame. With the advent of iTunes and other similar services, those kind of fees were just too good to last.

[eldaec]

Usually when people say they can't tell the difference between 192 and 256 or higher, it later turns out they are listening on a $50 stereo from 1987. Or in the car.

This isn't intended as a cue for people start discussing how much their amp doesn't suck, but as an observation I have made based on when RL people say this whose kit I have actually heard.

[Shockeye]

Emusic has plenty of obscure stuff. Or at least they did at one point in time (and believe me, if it's obscure to me, it's REALLY obscure). Too bad they've moved to a "per song" type of subscription deal though. A couple years back, it was a flat monthly fee, with unlimited downloads. Damn shame. With the advent of iTunes and other similar services, those kind of fees were just too good to last.

Emusic it is. I just browsed their catalog and see many things I'd enjoy plus it's Lame VBR ~192k, which is acceptable.

Thank you.

[Samwise]

Usually when people say they can't tell the difference between 192 and 256 or higher, it later turns out they are listening on a $50 stereo from 1987. Or in the car.

That's probably true.  The vast majority of humanity doesn't spend a lot of money on stereo equipment.  I do most of my own music listening on $20 PC speakers, and the rest in the car.

[TripleDES]

Point is: The frequency range being recorded on a CD is twice as much as what humans are capable of hearing. For "listening" purposes, you don't need all of it.

Nyquist would like to have a talk with you...